Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?

On 20 Mar 2004 02:09:50 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(G EddieA95) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

No. Population stabilization can be accomplished voluntarily with the
appropriate incentives. Absent mass immigration, we wouldn't be too far
from that now.


No one is *immigrating* into Earth. AIUI, the issue is world P, not US P.

The US is not overpopulated by any stretch of imagination.

Neither is overpopulated. They're both just badly governed.

Rand Simberg wrote:

And as that occurs (if it does), its price will rise, resulting in
increased research into replacements.


You wouldn't want to say provide a pointer to a similarily widespread
technology being replaced because of price concerns, instead of it and
related industries simply dieing out?

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote in
:

"Coridon Henshaw @ (TH+ESE) sympatico.ca)" (chenshawREMOVE wrote
in message ...
(G EddieA95) wrote in
:

Manmade fusion doesn't exist yet, and antimatter is an energy
*sink* (making it requires more energy than you get from it).

sigh

Only from AOL....

Umm, he's right on both counts. Unless you know of a source for ready
made antimatter.

Backtrack the thread for a little context...

--
Coridon Henshaw - http://www3.telus.net/csbh - "I have sadly come to the
conclusion that the Bush administration will go to any lengths to deny
reality." -- Charley Reese

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 02:59:37 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
Sander Vesik made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:

And as that occurs (if it does), its price will rise, resulting in
increased research into replacements.


You wouldn't want to say provide a pointer to a similarily widespread
technology being replaced because of price concerns, instead of it and
related industries simply dieing out?

Coal.

Whale Oil.

Analog telecom switching systems.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:38:18 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik
wrote, in part:

You should also seriously consider proving that the number of people in
poverty would be smaller if the number of people would be lower, and not
vice versa.

It is obvious by observing groups of people in different countries on
Earth now that two things lead to poverty:

a lack of access to technology, and

a lack of access to resources.

It is possible for a country with limited resources to be prosperous
if it is a world leader in technology - like Japan - and prosperity
can also come from having lots of resources relative to a small
population - like North America and Australia a hundred years ago.

Why should I have to "prove" the obvious, whereas the obviously silly
notion that a larger population, in which resources such as arable
land, water, and metals would be driven to higher prices, being
scarce, and human labor, being common, would become cheaper, would
lead to prosperity and not poverty is not given the burden of proof?

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 02:59:37 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
Sander Vesik made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:

And as that occurs (if it does), its price will rise, resulting in
increased research into replacements.


You wouldn't want to say provide a pointer to a similarily widespread
technology being replaced because of price concerns, instead of it and
related industries simply dieing out?

Coal.

The other two are fine, but coal is still a pretty serious industry and will
continue to be so for a long while to come.

Whale Oil.

Analog telecom switching systems.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 10:12:42 GMT, in a place far, far away,
lid (John Savard) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

It is possible for a country with limited resources to be prosperous
if it is a world leader in technology - like Japan - and prosperity
can also come from having lots of resources relative to a small
population - like North America and Australia a hundred years ago.

Why should I have to "prove" the obvious, whereas the obviously silly
notion that a larger population, in which resources such as arable
land, water, and metals would be driven to higher prices, being
scarce, and human labor, being common, would become cheaper, would
lead to prosperity and not poverty is not given the burden of proof?

People don't realize that humans are a resource as well, perhaps the
ultimate one, when allowed to be.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 10:47:21 GMT, in a place far, far away,
lid (John Savard) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On 20 Mar 2004 02:09:50 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote, in
part:

The US is not overpopulated by any stretch of imagination.

Certainly the U.S. is drastically overpopulated.

Again, you confuse overpopulation with misgovernment.

(G EddieA95) writes:
Clearly,
our population is much larger than can be effectively accomodated on
Earth with our present technological level.

That's not obvious. Technology is *not* currently being used in any major way
to try and fight poverty (or physical need, which is somewhat more quantifiable
than "poverty." Social tools are just as important in this as technological
ones.


Hmmm, technology can help. Check out "golden rice" some time.

-Lex

Hmmm, technology can help. Check out "golden rice" some time.

-Lex

THX, i will, But I did not say it *wouldn't* help, I said societies aren't
really using it in a poverty-fighting cause.